TATU Vs. FULABAI AND LALLU NAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's/appellant's appeal filed against the judgment and decree, dated 31-8-81, passed by the learned third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 23-A/80, whereby the plaintiff's/appellant's appeal had been dismissed, which had arisen out of the Civil Suit No. 31-A/71, decided on 26-7-1980, by Civil Judge Class 11, Baloda Bazar.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are : The parties are governed by Mitakshara Hindu Law. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for possession of suit property (one house and some agricultural lands described as the schedule annexed to the plaint) as of reversioner. According to the genealogical tree shown in the written statement (which appears to be correct) he was Thakuri's first cousin Ram Charan's son. Thakuri, according to the plaint averments (which was filed in 1971) died 22 years ago, i.e. in 1949. Thakuri's one son Jhagru had predeceased him. About 20 years ago, i e. in 1951, Thakuri's second son Dular died. Thakuri's widow Malikbai died about 17 years ago, i.e. in 1954. Dular's widow Mst. Hammabai, defendant No. 1, remarried Lallu the defendant No. 2, about 18-19 years ago, i.e. in 1952-53 and the present respondent No. 1 Mst. Fulabai was born to them 14-15 years ago, i.e., in 1956-57 (defendant No. 1 Mst. Hammabai having died during the pendency of the first appeals). The plaintiff's/appellant's case is that the suit lands and house originally belonged to the deceased Thakuri. After his death, the suit property was inherited by his son Dular. After Dular's death Mst. Hammabai had re-married Lallu, defendant No. 2, and thereby she suffered her civil death. So, she could not succeed to her deceased husband's estate. It is the claim of the appellant Tatu that as a sole reversioner he is entitled to the suit property. His further case was that after Thakuri's death, a village Panchyat was held and the defendants had surrendered their rights in the suit property to him and he was put in possession of it. He continued in possession thereof till 1971. when defendant No. 2 Lallu forcibly dispossessed him. In the alternative the plaintiff/appellant also pleaded that he had perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession.

(3.) The defendants/respondents have denied the plaint allegations. Their referee is that after the death of Dular, there developed affection and inrimacy between his widow Mst. Hammabai and Lallu, and Fulabai was born to them. After one year of the birth of Fulabai, Msf Hammabai remarried Lallu by a Churi ceremony. Mst. Hammabai was in continuous possession of the suit property since after the death of her former husband Dular. The Panchayat allegations are also denied. The genealogical tree shown in the plaint has also been challenged and correct pedigree of the parties has been given in the written statement, showing that the plaintiff is not the sole reversioner. It is emphatically denied that any right to the suit property had accrued to the plaintiff/appellant in any manner.